Re: [Gfo-users] Missing relation from Reference Document

[Frank Loebe]

Dear Ruth Truong,

I'm so sorry for the very late response, and I need to be very brief 
today (actually already offline until Jul 04, only then back at work). 
Thanks very much for your interest, in any case!


> The sentence that is missing the relation says, "There is
> another basic relation for processes, denoted by ."
> Would someone be able to fill in that blank and inform me what
> relation should be there?

The relation is called "time restriction", formally "timerestr(x, t, y)" 
and in the subsequent sentence it should read:

"The relation has the meaning that x is a process, t is a time-entity 
[...], and the entity y results from the restriction of x to t".

(In the book, there is a typo: "of t to t").

Please cf. also [1], p.22, last paragraph of sect. 6.2.

I think in other/former documents that relation has been called 
"projection", but I would have to look further to be sure or provide a 
pointer. The current term is "(time) restriction".

If there are any further questions, I myself can only react again from 
July 04 on.

Apologies anew and best regards,
Frank Loebe


[1] Herre, H.; Heller, B.; Burek, P.; Hoehndorf, R.; Loebe, F. & 
Michalek, H.. General Formal Ontology (GFO): A Foundational Ontology 
Integrating Objects and Processes. Part I: Basic Principles. Research 
Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med), University of Leipzig.

    Latest intermediate revision: Version 1.0.1, Draft, 14.02.2007


http://www.onto-med.de/Archiv/ontomed2002/en/theories/gfo/part1-drafts/gfo-part1-v1-0-1.pdf

linked at

    http://www.onto-med.de/ontologies/gfo/index.jsp


------ Original Message ------
From:    Ruth Truong <address@hidden>
Sent:    2018.06.19 18:37 +0200
To:      gfo-users <address@hidden>
Subject: [Gfo-users] Missing relation from Reference Document

> Hello,
>
> My name is Ruth, and I am a research assistant under the employ of Dr. 
> Constance Crompton at the University of Ottawa. We are comparing 
> ontologies as groundwork for a Semantic Web project. Its aim is the 
> development of a tool that will convert datasets into linked data. As 
> such, I have made notes on the General Formal Ontology by looking at its 
> hierarchy and definitions within Stanford's Protégé application. While 
> skimming the reference document ("The Ontology of Medical Terminological 
> Systems"), I noticed that a relation is missing from a sentence.
>
> The paragraph goes on to elaborate its meaning, but the relation itself 
> is not stated, and I am unable to piece it together using the subsequent 
> description. It is the last paragraph of section 4.2 (Principal 
> Distinctions). The sentence that is missing the relation says, "There is 
> another basic relation for processes, denoted by ." Would someone be 
> able to fill in that blank and inform me what relation should be there? 
> Please let me know at your earliest convenience.
>
> All best,
>
> Ruth Truong